Barack Obama's Hillary Clinton Appointment Violates The Constitution

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

In other words, if a Senator or Representative was serving in Congress at a time when the salary of a civil office was increased, they cannot be appointed to that civil office during the time for which they were elected, because it would create a conflict of interests. That Senator or Representative would be benefiting directly, personally, and financially from legislation that passed through their house and became policy.

Because the President's Cabinet has had pay increases during Clinton's tenure as Senator, by Bush's executive order and with the authorization of Congress, Hillary Clinton is not presently eligible under the rules clearly defined in the Constitution to be appointed to the office of Secretary of State. By appointing her, President Obama has ignored the Constitution, by accepting his appointment, Hillary Clinton shares in his ignorance (or willful defiance), and the 94 Senators who voted to confirm his nomination also show that they are unfamiliar with the Constitution or just don't care what it has to say.

Just one more of disgustingly-too-many instances which confirm that Obama's feigned caution over the Constitution was just a big, fat exception to a record of being very comfortable with violating it. Is anyone else starting to get disturbed at how easy it is for me to find and point out examples of our leaders' gross negligence of the Constitution and rule-of-law? I've been busting these out every other day for the past two weeks like it's a cakewalk. They just keep violating the Constitution, and I just keep telling you about it.

Hey Adam. Thanks for you comment. I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, and I can definitely see where you're coming from if you're as fed up with partisan sniping over stupid stuff as I am. It's sickening to see two groups hammering one another over things that both are guilty of.

But I insist that this is not just more partisan garbage. I criticize both parties equally for their violations of the Constitution and rule of law. You can see two of my articles with such criticisms of Bush here and here.

I hope it's evident now that I'm not splitting hairs or "pissing in the wind" just to gripe at Obama. I am arguing from a principled position, the position that the Constitution matters and that it is disconcerting to live at a time when it is so widely disregarded by some of our greatest leaders and legal minds. Either they just aren't aware or they just don't care, and I'm disturbed by either alternative.

Do you disagree with that principle itself? In other words, would you say that Clinton's appointment isn't really a big deal, even if it does violate the Constitution? If so, I'd love to hear why and- naturally- to explain why I think it does matter and why even though it isn't really a big deal, it is really a big deal.

I was once told by a man much wiser than I, that continuing to do something over and over again that doesn't work, and expecting at some point to get a different result is the definition of insanity. While this may not be Webster's definition, it certainly fits.

We continue year after frustrating year to make ourselves heard to our representatives and members of congress, but always with the same result. No matter how shrill our screams for reigning in government insanity (and promises made us regarding same) we continue down the same path, stuck in the same ruts, administration after administration.

What logical sense then, does it make to continue to try to reform government with "government approved" methods (political means)? Permitted protests, writing your congressman, attending "town hall" meetings, proper use of the "initiative process", even VOTING, serve only to placate the masses. You feel involved, but you are merely playing in a "sand box" while "Mommy and Daddy" (congress, the executive branch) take care of the "important" stuff.

I think the fact that Obama was going to forget about his campaign promises was a foregone conclusion, long before the election was over. Thinking otherwise is like really believing that internet chain letter will make you rich. You HOPE it will, but in your heart you know it's all hype.

I guess all I'm saying is, what logical sense does it make to continue on this path? What we need to do, (since it's painfully obvious at this point that our "leaders" are just a bunch of spoiled brats who insist on having their way, regardless of the consequences to society) is start by boycotting any corporation, bank, insurance company, car wash, or whatever that took one single dime of "stimulus money". Expand the flourishing free market system we already have in place, (liberals and neo-cons call it the black market) to include everything from soup to nuts, eventually starving the regulated market to death.

This will not by any means be easy, but it is incumbent upon each one of us as freedom loving individuals to do everything in our power to thwart socialism, as it kills and impoverishes wherever it's cancerous malignancy is allowed to grow.

Obama's a liar? No big surprise there for anyone with a brain stem, but the real question is: What will we do in response?

Thank you for posting this. Even if the salary change somehow does not change the violation, it least draws into serious question the notion that this was some sort of deliberate ignoring of the Constitution. So we were wrong. Thanks for keeping us accountable!

I disagree- Constitutional scholars say that this still does not satisfy the text of the Constitution. Also- people who can read can see that lowering Hillary's salary does not satisfy the text of the Constitution. I'm kind of "splitting hairs" but I'm kind of not. We either abide by the law, or conveniently ignore it when we feel like it. The latter alternative is just poor statesmanship and a symptom of the lawlessness of our present era in American history.

I agree with Dave, if only we could get enough people to come and listen though. I'd do it if i was old enough, but what needs to be done is someone needs to get the people together and organized and make a march to Washingtion (again, there has already been one, and for the same reason: Obama) and make a speech. The silent majority of the people should be represented and heard, and a boycott should be made. The government should not tell what the people to do, the people should be telling what the government to do! We cannot wait until November, the time is too long, and we need to buy more time until then. Btw, i predict there will be a civil war in the near future. 2012 maybe?

Hey James. I don't know about a civil war, but I do think some of the Russian political scientists and historians who predict a fracture in the union could be on to something. I think it would happen rather peacefully though. I just don't see American soldiers firing on other Americans today. I just don't see it.

Well, as far as you being lonely out there in your comments..... you most certainly have a friend here!!!

You see, I am one of those LIbertarians who happened to get fooled by my Sotoro. I believed him when he said he would follow the Constitution and not raise taxes. And not use signing statements...... and get us out of the WAR immediately!! I think he should be impeached for lying like that...... either that or I DO want my vote back. There is no accountability in Washington. The bailout proved that to me resoundingly, once and for all. Now is the time when I truly will never again believe any politician. I welcome a third party but, at the same time, am so afraid that it will prove that the power elite can take control of that also. I watched the Debra Medina campaign with first delight (donating $100) then with horror as the Mainstream media strung her up then made her dance like a Marionnette. I took it personally. So I am in despair about a Constitutionalist taking back control of anything.... even a state office. But always that despair turns to anger and that makes me stronger to see that, somehow, this must be made right.... Our children, rightly, will never forgive us for not standing against this corruption and tyranny.

Oh, also for the record.... the Constitution was suspended under the Continuity of Government plan put in place under the Emergency War Powers declaration of Sept. 12, 2001. Since renewed each year including this year by President Obama. Now, tell me, do we not live under a shadow government run behind the scenes? I tell you, our government has been taken over. We are under martial law already!

Just came across this from a link in Yahoo Answers. It's clever, but fails in the details.

Clinton was Senator when the salary for Secretary of State was increased so she wasn't eligible to be Secretary for the rest of the term she was serving when that happened. Read the quoted section carefully, that's what it says.

The link shows pay was increased in 2004, when Clinton was in her first term. So she was ineligible to be Secretary until that term ended in January 2007. After that she became eligible again, so her appointment in 2009 was constitutional.

My mistake for trusting someone else's research. This blog post missed another pay increase affecting Secretary of State, this one during Clinton's 2nd term in the Senate. Under the Ineligibility Clause she would be ineligible until January 2013.

The workaround is the Saxbe Fix, named for a trick during the Nixon administration. Clinton accepted the appointment at the salary that was current before her second term in the Senate. That fix has been used a few times and hasn't been tested in court because no one has standing to challenge an appointment under the Ineligibility Clause.

And that's the real answer to the question. The appointment with Saxbe fix isn't unconstitutional until the court says it is, and the court says no one has standing to bring the case to court.

I can't help but notice you're a bit selective in your advocacy of adherence to the letter of the Constitution. Since when is granting money to charities that happen to be religious an establishment of a state church or state religion?

Thank you Messamore for your voice and input, especially the article on; “The 100 ways BO is just like Bush.”

Doesn’t anybody get it? The two parties are the same-in-one beast, going in the direction of globalism; they just take different paths to get there! The conservatives may have a bad idea, but the liberals do it.

When are (we) as the people of, for, and by the government of the US of AA (formerly AAA) or as Rev Wright says (KKK), going to lay down our indulgencies, i.e. (the video games, the night club scenes, turn off the porn, throw away the crack pipe, shut off the Gaga, and Winehouse idol worship, etc.) and realize we are in government purgatory of sheeple-ism, and climb out of our delusion, and realize that the government is on our shoulders and not on the shoulders of the government socialites?

Whatever happened to the (Checks and Balances)? Where’s the Legislative Branch, where’s the Judicial Branch, where’s the Executive Branch? When one part of government is out of balance, or performs acts unconstitutionally, the other branches are suppose to step in and correct, prosecute, etc. But the whole system is corrupt, from with-in. Just as Al-Gore said; “There is no controlling legal authority.” Wow, are we screwed or what? When the controlling legal authority is no longer (legally) controlling (balancing) morally, constitutionally, or qualitatively, what are we to do?

The bridge Clinton paved into 21st Century is the same old path that allowed the controlling illegal hoard to advance the global system. We need to find the beast (the source of control) behind the shadows and attack and destroy the beast that dictates the puppet spawns, and then we can start taking back our government.

Splitting hairs?? Okay, so then it's okay to over look laws when we want to? No! The law is the law. You go out and rob a bank but it's okay because you donate money to charity. No! It doesn't matter who's side it is.

Keep putting it all out there! The more that read and get educated the better.